In Stockfish we trust - Bedford Chess Club

I’ve had a bit of feedback on my last post so thought I’d better close this subject off before I go back to my normal website activity – fiddling with font sizes etc.

To put this in a bit of context, I have a lot of respect for Chris Ross – I have been duffed up by him on a number of occasions before and since this game which he obviously won fair and square in the end. Clearly his achievements are admirable and, as he suggests in the introduction to this book, he may well be “one of the strongest completely blind chess players in the world and within English history”.

Conversely the Steve Pike that now plays for Bedford D and is about to be relegated from Bedford club division 1 does play “ugly moves”, does put his pieces on “unattractive squares”, doesn’t “consider the consequence of his pawn structure” and all too often does play with “bemused .. desperation” but, I would humbly suggest, not in this game!

I know that Chris likes to explain what he was thinking about at the time, rather than just regurgitating a lot of engine moves in hindsight, which I like, but I think you need to cross check your evaluations, however good you are!

Anyway, you judge:

  [Event " Northampton v Bedford B (Beds league 1)"] [Date "2014.03.26"] [White "Steve Pike"] [Black "Chris Ross"] [Result "0-1"]   e4 c5 2. Nf3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} e6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 3. d4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} cxd4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 4. Nxd4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 5. Nc3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Qc7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 6. Nxc6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} bxc6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 7. Qd3 {I'd seen this idea of Karajakin's the day before in the candidates and, although there are probably better ways to play against the Sicilian, I thought it was interesting and was quite pleased to have managed to contrive it.  I am actually a move behind as Andrekhin had played 5.. a6 but I thought it was still worth a go.[%clk 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 8. Qg3 {The point, an endgame with odd pawn structure is reached on move 8![%clk 0:00:00]} Qxg3 {other moves are good for white[%clk 0:00:00]} 9. hxg3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Bb4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Bd2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} e5 {Chris gives himself a "!" for this, Stockfish is not so sure and prefers d5 which Andrekhin played but I sort of understand Chris's point to not imprison his light-squared bishop[%clk 0:00:00]} 11. Bd3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} d6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 12. f3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nd7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 13. a3 {I get a "?" for this but SF and I think its ok.  To be fair to Chris, he offers this insight: "Some chess psychology was involved here too. For after Black’s 12th move, I moved away from the board and exited the room, to frequent the downstairs bar and refresh my empty beer glass. Being nearly 10 minutes up on the clock, I could well afford the time. This can play on the opponent’s mind and they may look for ‘easy’ moves when you are out of the room, in order to gain time on the clock. True enough, when I returned some six minutes later, my opponent had played this move relatively quickly and I had lost nearly four minutes on my clock. Few moves are easy though. ‘Easy’ moves tend to be immediate recaptures and other such forced moves. Departing the room at such times is not good clock management. In this example, though, White is lured into a seemingly harmless, but immensely significant weakening." - all seems a bit bonkers to me but interesting nonetheless.[%clk 0:00:00]} Ba5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Bc4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nf8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 15. O-O-O {I get a "?" for this. Chris (and SF) prefer b4 but my move is ok I think (as does SF). "White is not considering the consequences of his pawn structure, and is now verging on the stage of being positionally lost." - SF evaluation +0.4[%clk 0:00:00]} Be6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 16. Bxe6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nxe6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 17. Ne2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Bxd2+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} 18. Rxd2 {Another "?" from Chris but top move with SF.  Apparently now I am " indeed, positionally lost"[%clk 0:00:00]} Ke7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 19. f4 {"It is too harsh to begin questioning all of White’s moves, but he has now obtained a very poor position, it is difficult to suggest improvements for his play" - that's not very nice![%clk 0:00:00]} h5 {Chris gives himself another "!" for this - "securing a huge advantage" - SF evaluation -0.33, the first time in the red so maybe Chris is right, if a little overstated![%clk 0:00:00]} 20. Rhd1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rad8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 21. f5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Ng5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 22. Nc3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rh6 {another "!" for Chris[%clk 0:00:00]} 23. b4 {and it is fair to say that White is starting to go astray[%clk 0:00:00]} a6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 24. Kb2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nh7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 25. Na4 {"desperation" or SF's choice, one of those[%clk 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 26. Nc5 {this actually deserves a "?" but it doesn't get one from Chris![%clk 0:00:00]} Ng4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} (26… Rhh8 $1 {puts White in a lot of trouble but Chris doesn't mention it.  His move simply resets SF's evaluation to around 0 which is where it stays for the next 20 moves}) 27. Nb7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Ne3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 28. Nxd8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Nxd1+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} 29. Rxd1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Kxd8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 30. c4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Kc7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 31. Kc3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} h4 {"!" - why not![%clk 0:00:00]} 32. g4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} h3 {" the weaknesses in the white pawn structure, by opening up the h-file, are actually fatal for him."[%clk 0:00:00]} 33. gxh3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rxh3+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} 34. Rd3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rh1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 35. Rg3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Re1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 36. Kd3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rd1+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} 37. Kc3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Ra1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 38. Kd2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Ra2+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} 39. Kd1 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rh2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 40. g5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Kd7 {incredibly, Chris give himself a "?" for this move.  Not sure why, it's certainly better than his 26th move missed opportunity[%clk 0:00:00]} 41. g6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} f6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 42. Rd3 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rh4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 43. Re3 {"… there was no good reason to accept the draw, especially so when Black had played so well. Moreover, Black now has a simple and easy winning method." - SF evaluation 0.00 - what is this simple and easy winning method?[%clk 0:00:00]} d5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 44. cxd5 {"White should resign, as there is nothing salvageable in the position" - SF evaluation 0.00[%clk 0:00:00]} cxd5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 45. exd5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Kd6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 46. Ke2 {[%clk 0:00:00]} (46. Rc3 {is more accurate, but its very tough announcing your moves in a time scramble, however churlish that sounds!}) 46… Kxd5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 47. Rd3+ {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rd4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 48. Rh3 $4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} (48. Rc3 {still looks drawn to me and SF}) 48… Ke4 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 49. Rh7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rd7 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 50. Rh8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Kxf5 {[%clk 0:00:00]} 51. Ra8 {[%clk 0:00:00]} Rd6 {[%clk 0:00:00]} *

3 Replies to “In Stockfish we trust”

Graham Borrowdale says:

June 9, 2022 at 1:47 pm

Steve, at least you were spared the ignomy of having your effort dissected in Chess magazine, as one of my efforts against Chris was this month. I don’t think I will bother buying the book!
Richard Bodily says:

June 4, 2022 at 9:26 pm

Completely level game until move 48 when sadly Spike erred, Rc3 is drawn. Maybe c5 on move 43 makes the draw clearer.
Some strange comments by Chris Ross in his book re this game.

Well played and unlucky Steve
Richard McMorran says:

May 30, 2022 at 6:22 pm

Yes, I’ve played Chris Ross twice. Lost both times. The second time he downed four cans of lager during the match.

Impressive playing and drinking !!

Richard McM

Comments are closed.